Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings

[Rexp]

Is it likely to matter?

It might, the other variable is one video is on Youtube, the other Vimeo.

 

[Al M.]

This is measuring an old iPhone model. I can't imagine that if David and I have an iPhone that is no more than one (1) generation apart that the microphone frequency response is going to materially different.

Bonzo once posted about sound impressions from diverse more recent iPhones and said there were substantial differences, if I remember correctly.

 

[hopkins]

You did not understand my earlier remark and thought I was talking about LPs. I never mentioned an LP. Here you make an appeal to something streamed from Qobuz saying video 1 did not sound like that and apparently -- my guess -- videos 2 and 3 sound more like what you heard streamed from Qobuz. A far better 'argument', or at least an explanation of why you have your view would be to say "I'm judging these videos based on what I hear from Qobuz, (presumably through headphones); that is my standard." At least that explains your opinion and let's readers assess the value of it from that explanation.

Ok, but what is it about Qobuz then that changes the value of my judgement? Please educate me...

I have tested numerous times downloading Qobuz tracks and comparing them to streaming, and comparing tracks with CD rips for which I know there is only a single release (hence no difference in mastering) and I have never heard any differences. It does not mean there are none, perhaps my ears and/or my system are flawed, but if there are differences I doubt they would be significant in the context of these video comparisons...

 

[hopkins]

Or am I, once again, misunderstanding you, and what you meant to say is that we should not compare a video with the original track using headphones, but evaluate the video on its own ?

In that case, there is no way of knowing which recording is closest to the original track, on a number of criteria. That's not viable, IMO. You could prefer a highly colored rendition of one track that would sound horrible on another. If the term "high fidelity" means anything, it's not that...

 

[tima]

I too find that recording lower in resolution and dare I say muddy . Voice and what is being sung is not so easy at times to clearly hear. Is the tone nice? Yes but at least as recorded it throws the baby out with bath water. Tone and dynamics, sure, but there also needs to be transparency and resolution…the other way around(more common in high end) is also not good as it comes across as analytical and unnatural.

That is your account in terms of audiophile words and if that works for you then okay fine. Even as a reviewer I'm still unclear about the words 'resolution' and 'transparency'. Transparency to sources, yes, but be that as it may ...

There are other considerations which go into my assessments - which I have not stated -- so don't take these comments as necessarily about Ron's Rigby videos. I thank him for posting them. Here is part my take on assessing sound/music.

I tend to consider the gestalt, the whole picture before decomposing it into audiophile terminology. That includes an overall sense of ambiance -- does the sound give me the sense of a live performer in a space, the sense of an orchestra in hall, a sense of the relationship of performers to one another. We had a very good discussion of this in Karen Sumner's thread: Space The Final Frontier.

SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...

www.whatsbestforum.com

I also consider something less tangible as part of the gestalt -- this is a certain emotive factor -- does the music engage my interest, my emotion, do I connect emotionally with the performance, does it draw me in in a way that I enjoy it without thinking about audio systems. For some this is the primary factor in assessing what they like. One can have 'transparency and resolution' yet this emotive factor is not there. Tone, dynamics, transparency/resolution can all be there but the reproduction remains flat, uninvolving, lacking engagement. It can lack a certain vivacity (which does not mean excitement), a sense of life-likeness that I hear in live performances.

I'm not prepared to give an explanation but I suspect there is a connection between ambiance and emotional engagement.

There was some question about the video version of Tang's Eurodyns at David's. I don't know if this is the same as posted earlier, but I asked David for it and he sent me this link.

edit: I don't think this is the same as the one Ron posted. The cords on the floor behind the speakers are different. Why does it matter? There were several videos made as the system was put together. I believe the one here is a final.

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo once posted about sound impressions from diverse more recent iPhones and said there were substantial differences, if I remember correctly.

Not substantial. There are differences. My channel has videos from iphone 7, 8 to now 11. Samsung gives a less emotional feel than iphone. However none of them change evaluation aspect. Yes, when Tang was in a good mood we would play like a sport to compete his system with other systems playing the same recording. He has used Samsung, I have used iphone, and when things are close, this could matter slightly. It will no way change the evaluation of a system to think one is great, one is meh, one is crap, or the differences heard after changing components within a system.

 

[Al M.]

Not substantial. There are differences. My channel has videos from iphone 7, 8 to now 11. Samsung gives a less emotional feel than iphone. However none of them change evaluation aspect. Yes, when Tang was in a good mood we would play like a sport to compete his system with other systems playing the same recording. He has used Samsung, I have used iphone, and when things are close, this could matter slightly. It will no way change the evaluation of a system to think one is great, one is meh, one is crap, or the differences heard after changing components within a system.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I remember Tang once posting two recordings of the same track played on his system, one with iPhone, the other with Samsung. To my ears it sounded like two different systems.

 

[bonzo75]

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I remember Tang once posting two recordings of the same track played on his system, one with iPhone, the other with Samsung. To my ears it sounded like two different systems.

well…your ears and videos…

 

[tima]

Or am I, once again, misunderstanding you, and what you meant to say ...

I said what I meant to say and that's all I have to say on this topic.

 

[hopkins]

I said what I meant to say and that's all I have to say on this topic.

"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

 

[hopkins]

@tima

Quoting from the link you provided (Karen Sumner), to recap things a little more concisely:

"If we get tonal balance, instrumental timbres, and dynamics as close to right as possible in a home music system, a more realistic portrayal of the performance space is naturally a part of the listening package"

I don't see how there is any dichotomy between this and a so-called "audiophile" approach (I don't understand what it would be, but whatever it is I understand from your post that it is slightly pejorative)... It seems to me that anyone would agree that these are the basic ingredients that we strive to achieve.


I don't see either how resolution and transparency suddenly become meaningless in that context. On the contrary, they are the necessary prerequisites to obtain these results (tonal balance, accurate timbres, dynamics). How could it be any other way?

But I believe the relevant question here is not to debate audiophile definitions of "good sound", nor is it to debate what is required (source, system, room) to achieve them, but to determine whether videos can convey these qualities?

 

[PeterA]

Well Ron has said his recordings have a digital glaze compared to what he hears in-room.
I'd be interested in your opinion on @morricab videos. He has recordings of digitally sourced and analog systems, the Zoom IQ7 mic used is quite good at revealing the differences:

https://youtube.com/@TheHighEnder-fk4sp

One could write that his videos all have a digital glare compared to what he hears in his room. This makes sense, especially from those of us who only have analog because the videos are digital and processed, but what does it really tell us? The videos are just a tool and method by which we can share music and give some indication of what our systems sounds like. Ron has lately been sharing videos for comparison purposes and they are sufficient for us to view and pass judgment.

I will listen to some of Brad‘s videos when I get back to my computer in a few days.

 

[PeterA]

The MV88+ video reasonably fairly represents the in-the-room resolution I hear. The iPhone mic video reasonably fairly represents the tonal balance I hear in the room.

I, personally, find the David/Tang speaker video to be comparatively low in resolution and transparency. Peter, I hear that it is rich and warm and fulsome in the upper bass to lower midrange frequency range. It has a sonic center of gravity in the "power" range that I find emotionally engaging and unfatiguing.

I think the treble range is shaved down. For this reason I find the sound to be unbalanced.

I don't understand how you find that video abundant in "information" and "nuance."

I have learned from my objective in room frequency response measurements alone the wide gap between objective measurements and perceived subjective frequency response balance. (The frequency response of my system drops off sharply after 5kHz, yet the system subjectively sounds flat and neutral and leaning towards brightness. I think it would be extremely illuminating to see a carefully measured frequency response of your system/room or of Tang's system/room.)

I have tried to explain that the video you pulled up to make your point about these speakers is an old video of an early version that no longer exists. The speaker was rebuilt and new videos were made. There were many iterations until the final version was made. There were adjustments to subs, the crossover and the baffle wood and construction and the frame system.

Here is the final version of Tang’s speakers before they were shipped to him. Eventhough I like the first one, this one is much better and it is easy to hear the differences even on my simple phone speakers.

 

[Carlos269]

One could write that his videos all have a digital glare compared to what he hears in his room. This makes sense, especially from those of us who only have analog because the videos are digital and processed, but what does it really tell us? The videos are just a tool and method by which we can share music and give some indication of what our systems sounds like. Ron has lately been sharing videos for comparison purposes and they are sufficient for us to view and pass judgment.

I will listen to some of Brad‘s videos when I get back to my computer in a few days.

Peter, don’t assume that because the recording in a video is from a digital source that the video will have a glare or sound “processed” as I hear none of that on my recent videos, which are all from digital sourced recordings. That statement is too much of a stereotype for something that isn’t universal.

 

[wil]

I do this.

And I get feedback on system changes from knowledgeable friends.

You use video recordings as a tool to help judge changes in your system?

Im interested to experiment with this. I can imagine it would at least be revealing to whether the change actually changes anything. I think qualitative judgments can follow after listening direct over time.

 

[Rexp]

Peter, don’t assume because the recording in a video is from a digital source that video will have a glare or sound “processed” as I hear none of that on my recent videos, which are all from digital sourced recordings. That statement is too much of a stereotype for something that isn’t universal.

I don't think your video of Eleanor is as natural/analog sounding as Tangs. It seems to be the digital version of this track that's at fault not your system or recording method (what is it btw?). Most digital versions of AAA recordings are poor IMO.

 

[hopkins]

I don't think your video of Eleanor is as natural/analog sounding as Tangs. It seems to be the digital version of this track that's at fault not your system or recording method (what is it btw?). Most digital versions of AAA recordings are poor IMO.

Digital is convenient because you can easily listen to the original version. That's a big plus in my book. You can then compare a video to the original track on your headphones or your system. Whether the LP version is better is not so relevant, IMO, for the sake of understanding a system's sound signature, as long as you can compare.

 

[Carlos269]

I don't think your video of Eleanor is as natural/analog sounding as Tangs. It seems to be the digital version of this track that's at fault not your system or recording method (what is it btw?). Most digital versions of AAA recordings are poor IMO.

We can agree to disagree then because to me my video of Eleanor Rigby sounds much, much, much (so that there is no doubt of what I mean) better than Tang’s video, the last iteration that Peter posted. When I say that my video “sounds better” I mean to my liking and to my ideal of what it should sound like and that should come as no surprise as I personally and purposefully made it sound that way. I could also have made it sound like Tang’s……but then I would not like or enjoy the resulting video as much!

 

[morricab]

That is your account in terms of audiophile words and if that works for you then okay fine. Even as a reviewer I'm still unclear about the words 'resolution' and 'transparency'. Transparency to sources, yes, but be that as it may ...

There are other considerations which go into my assessments - which I have not stated -- so don't take these comments as necessarily about Ron's Rigby videos. I thank him for posting them. Here is part my take on assessing sound/music.

I tend to consider the gestalt, the whole picture before decomposing it into audiophile terminology. That includes an overall sense of ambiance -- does the sound give me the sense of a live performer in a space, the sense of an orchestra in hall, a sense of the relationship of performers to one another. We had a very good discussion of this in Karen Sumner's thread: Space The Final Frontier.

SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...

www.whatsbestforum.com

I also consider something less tangible as part of the gestalt -- this is a certain emotive factor -- does the music engage my interest, my emotion, do I connect emotionally with the performance, does it draw me in in a way that I enjoy it without thinking about audio systems. For some this is the primary factor in assessing what they like. One can have 'transparency and resolution' yet this emotive factor is not there. Tone, dynamics, transparency/resolution can all be there but the reproduction remains flat, uninvolving, lacking engagement. It can lack a certain vivacity (which does not mean excitement), a sense of life-likeness that I hear in live performances.

I'm not prepared to give an explanation but I suspect there is a connection between ambiance and emotional engagement.

There was some question about the video version of Tang's Eurodyns at David's. I don't know if this is the same as posted earlier, but I asked David for it and he sent me this link.

edit: I don't think this is the same as the one Ron posted. The cords on the floor behind the speakers are different. Why does it matter? There were several videos made as the system was put together. I believe the one here is a final.

You don’t have to agree with my interpretation of THAT particular recording but my analysis of WHAT it sounds like is pretty accurate.

 

[Rexp]

Digital is convenient because you can easily listen to the original version. That's a big plus in my book. You can then compare a video to the original track on your headphones or your system. Whether the LP version is better is not so relevant, IMO, for the sake of understanding a system's sound signature, as long as you can compare.

Yes but I don't think the digital version of the Eleanor track is a good reference, quite a few better recorded tracks have been used in this thread. Another one I'd like to see/hear is this: